Judgment :- 1. This appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 in a suit to recover arrears of rent by sale of their tenancy rights. Palayadan who was the karnavan of defendants 1, 2 and 14 had a kanom right in the suit properties as per Ext. P10 dated 26-11-1870. He mortgaged the same as per Ext. P2 dated 31-1-1916 with possession to Gopalan Nair who, in his turn, leased the properties to Koonan Paidal, the father of defendants 1 and 2, as per Ext. P1 dated 9-3-1916. Two years later Koonan Paidal assigned his tenancy rights to Palaydan himself under Ext P5. Palayadan's successor, Thiruvenkatan Sankaran obtained a renewal of the kanom in his favour as per Ext. D1 and then leased the properties under Ext D2 in favour of defendants 1 and 14. The 14th defendant assigned his interests in favour of the 1st defendant as per Ext D4. Subsequently, the 1st defendant has obtained a renewal of the kanom in his name from the jenmi as per Ext. D6 dated 31-5-1943. The rent under Ext. P1 having fallen in arrears was assigned to the plaintiff as per Ext. P3 by Kunhiraman Nair who got it in partition in the tarwad of Gopalan Nair. It is by virtue of this right that the plaintiff has instituted this suit to realise the arrears of rent as a charge on the tenant's rights in the property. The defendants contended that they are not holding the properties under Ext. P1. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit, but on appeal the learned District Judge found that the plaintiff is not interested in the suit item 1, that item 2 is held by defendants 1, 2 and 14 as tenants under Ext. P1 and gave a decree to plaintiff for recovery of the arrears of rent in respect of item 2. Hence this Second Appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ext. P2, the mortgage in favour of Gopalan Nair, was itself invalid having been executed by Palayadan without any necessity binding on their tarwad and that the assignee of arrears of rent is not entitled to a charge on the holding and that in any view the tenancy rights of the 1st defendant as per Ext. II should be excluded from the suit charge. 3. As regards the validity of Ext. II should be excluded from the suit charge. 3. As regards the validity of Ext. P2 is concerned, it is to be noted that the document was executed on 31-1-1916. Assuming, without deciding, that the rights under Ext. P10 enured to the tarwad of Palayadan, the conveyance in Ext. P2, having been executed in 1916 by the karnavan of the tarwad and not having been questioned till date of this suit of 1943 has become a valid transaction. The conditions of necessity binding on, and the consent of other members of the tarwad can be availed of only by the members of the tarwad to question the transaction by their karnavan. The want of necessity and consent will not make an alienation of tarwad property by the karnavan a nullity; it may at the worst be voidable, to be avoided by interested members within time allowed by law. There is no case that Ext. P2 had been set aside or avoided by the members of the defendants' tarwad at any time hitherto. It follows therefore that the validity of Ext. P2 cannot be canvassed in this suit instituted in 1943 only. 4. With regard to the contention that the assignee of arrears of rent is not entitled to a charge, it is freely admitted that the landlord had a charge on the lease-hold for the arrears of rent as provided in 3.41 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The contention is that an assignee of the right to collect arrears of rent will not get the benefit of that charge. It is provided in S.8 of the Transfer of Property Act "unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property or the legal incidents thereof. Such incidents include ....where the property is a debt or other actionable claim the security therefor " This provision which governs the transfers of debts must necessarily apply to the instant case as it is not disputed that rent which has accrued due constitutes a debt. Such incidents include ....where the property is a debt or other actionable claim the security therefor " This provision which governs the transfers of debts must necessarily apply to the instant case as it is not disputed that rent which has accrued due constitutes a debt. It follows therefore that the assignment of a debt, by virtue of the provision in S.8 of the Transfer of Property Act, will take along with it the security therefor, i.e., in the instant case the charge on the tenant's holding as provided in S.41 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The learned counsel brought to my notice a ruling reported in Krishnan Atiyoti v. Tayyullathil Moosa (AIR. 1944 Mad. 557). No doubt the dictum in that ruling lends considerable support to the contention of the learned counsel. But I am constrained to observe that the provisions of S.8 of the Transfer of Property Act do not appear to have been brought to the notice of Their Lordships who decided the case. As I have to give greater consideration for a statutory provision than to a judicial precedent, I have respectfully to dissent from the dictum in that decision. If the provision of S.8 of the Transfer of Property Act is to apply, it is not disputed that the charge will follow the debt for which it enures. 5. So far as the exclusion of tenancy rights of the 1st defendant is concerned, it is pertinent to note that all that is claimed in this suit is a charge on the tenancy rights under Ext. P1 lease. The right under Ext. D2 is not paramount in relation to the rights under Ext. P1. If a charge on the tenancy rights under Ext. P1 for the rent due under Ext. P1 exists under S.41 of the Malabar Tenancy Act it will attach itself to the tenancy right as it changed hands from Koonan Paidal to Palayadan under Ext. P5, and also in the hands of Thiruvenkatan Sankaran who succeeded to the interests of Palayadan. The tenancy created by Sankaran as per Ext. D2 can only be subject to the charge on the interest of Sankaran himself. It follows therefore that no exclusion can be given in respect of the rights of the 1st defendant under Ext. D2. 6. In the result, the Second Appeal fails. It is dismissed with costs (one set). The tenancy created by Sankaran as per Ext. D2 can only be subject to the charge on the interest of Sankaran himself. It follows therefore that no exclusion can be given in respect of the rights of the 1st defendant under Ext. D2. 6. In the result, the Second Appeal fails. It is dismissed with costs (one set). Anything said in this judgment cannot of course prejudice the rights of the defendants, whatever they be, under the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act IV of 1961. The learned counsel for the appellants requests leave to appeal from this judgment. As I have dissented from a dictum expressed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, leave is granted. Leave granted.